Germany Fired Up Over Clean Coal

MIT's Technology Review is reporting on the world's first coal-driven power plant designed to capture and store C02 emissions. "Vattenfall's small 30-megawatt plant burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler. By repeating this process, known as oxyfuel, it is possible to greatly concentrate the carbon dioxide. After particles and sulfur have been removed, and water vapor has been condensed out, the waste gas can be 98 percent carbon dioxide, according to Vattenfall. The separated carbon dioxide will be cooled down to -28 C and liquefied. Starting next year, the plan is to transport it by truck 150 miles northwest, to be injected 3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark. Ideally, in the future, the gas will be carried by pipeline to underground storage, says Vattenfall. "

Comments

how much power does it use

[maharg]

really, how much CO2 is generated in removing the nitrogen from the air used to combust the lignite ?

How much does it cost?

[swm]

What is the final cost of the generated electricity?
In $/KW-Hr?

Solve the problem, for pete's sake

[cefek]

That's not the solution to the waste by-product problem. It only pushes it another decade, maybe two away. Storing waste CO2 underneath the surface is just asking for more problems. What happens if that gas is suddenly injected into the atmosphere? What happens is we all start living on, or maybe a couple of mile over, the ticking bomb?

Every energy production that has such a dangerous by-product is not the solution to our problem. Then again, we should think whether the hydrogen is. Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.

Re:Why store CO2?

[inviolet]

If it's pure CO2 they are capturing and storing, why don't they just release it into the Amazon rain forest?

Storing CO2 is not a viable solution, but giving it to the trees, who live on it and will convert it into 02, is!

Rainforests do not consume a net quantity C02. What carbon they do capture during photosynthesis is later reburned during respiration or released later during decomposition (e.g. bacteria, termites).

If rainforests were net consumers of CO2, then they would be accumulating a carbon store somewhere. This would take the form of vegetation mass (not increasing) or a coal seam somehow forming underneath all the tree roots (not observed). The carbon has to go somewhere if the trees are liberating any oxygen.

The only forests that do liberate oxygen and store carbon are young, growing forests. Mature forests are done -- they are in carbon equilibrium. Only young ones, which result from clearcutting and replanting, harvest carbon. This is why the US carbon credit program for forest owners will only pay out to folks who can prove that their forest is young growth.

And yes, I own a pine forest, and am sick of hearing about this crap.

Re:US should be fired up too.

[geekoid]

The coal industry ni the US has gotten waiver after waiver for our cleaner plants.
I dont believe they will ever implement an expensive technology unless someone puts a gun to their head. But they can't becasue what do you do if they just decide not to operate?

Re:steps

[afabbro]

Not a popular solution, but we never heard the Roman Empire or ancient C'hin Empire worry about fuel shortages or melting ice caps. That's because there were only 1/2 billion people..... lots of room and fuel for everybody. Nature wasn't impacted.

You're referring to an empire (Rome) that depopulated the gamestock of northern Africa in order to stock its coliseums.